Calling Upon the Name of the Lord

The whole act of gospel conversion is visibly identified with and expressed in the act of baptism (Rom. 10:10). Ananias is simply calling on Saul to make a visible expression of his gospel conversion in baptism. In baptism the initial confession of faith is recounted and reaffirmed.

He had already previously acknowledged him as a born again child of God ("brother") as well as his divine calling to the ministry by God.

Later, when Paul recounts his own conversion experience he places it on the road to Damascus rather than in the act of baptism thus distinguishing the reality from the symbolic expression:

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

It is this very commission that Paul refers to in I Corinthians 1:17 where he says "Christ sent me not to baptize" but to preach the gospel.

It is this initial appearance that Paul refers to in Galatians 1:15-16:

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

He is referring to the revelation of Christ WHEN he was called to preach by Christ. Acts 26:17 while standing on the road to Damascus Jesus says "NOW" I send thee. He was not called to preach by Christ in or after baptism. No, instead he IMMEDIATELY spent three days fasting and praying and only conferring with Christ BEFORE he was baptized.

 

The greatest insult in the world at that time was for a Jew to call upon Christ as Lord. They were the persecutors of Christians. Why would an unsaved Jew who tortures Christians call upon his name, and call him Lord, and then ask him Lord what would you have me to do, if he was not transformed by the saving power of Christ at that time?

 

It does not matter what evidence you place before him. He will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS come back with short MANTRA's just repeating his heresy in spite of any evidence you give him that contradicts his position.

 

Acts 9: 17 Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost
Acts 9: 18 Paul was baptized

Rest assured the day I was baptized; it wasn't the water in the creek that washed my sins away. :godisgood:

 

So far everyone has explained why Paul had to have been saved on the Damascus Road, not at the time of his baptism. So would someone explain what Ananias meant by the phrase, "Be baptized, and wash away your sins." Euphemism perhaps? Maybe Ananias didn't understand the theology of baptism? What did he mean here?

 

Totally in the dark? He saw a light that others saw not.
He heard a voice that others heard not.
He received a message that others received not.
He was transformed by the power of God, while others stood by.
You did not answer my previous post. I don't believe you can.

 

Lord what will thou have me to do?
He called upon the name of the Lord, the name of Jesus Christ as Lord. He was addressing Christ. He was submitting to Him as Lord and Master of his life. If there was ever an occasion of Lordship salvation (whether or not you believe it) it is here. Right here he makes Christ both Lord and Master of His life. He submits to Him as the Lord of his life. Just because he doesn't quote the Romans Road for you doesn't mean he isn't saved! Just because he doesn't say the "sinner's prayer" in the exact words that you want him to, doesn't mean he isn't saved. How legalistic can one be here?

 

Then you certainly don't believe in Lordship salvation, as Paul himself described when he called upon Christ as Lord. In fact you would be calling Paul a liar, and denying his clear testimony.

 

Peter told us what baptism was and what baptism was not. He said it is not the putting away of hte filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.

Here's the question noone has ever been able to answer who believed in baptism regeneration: why was Jesus baptized? Did Jesus have sins He needed to put away? Did He need to be regenerated?

 

Oh-oh-oh-oh! Pick me! :wavey: To fulfill all righteousness!!

 

1. So He could be numbered with the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12.

2. To fulfill all righteousness. Matthew 3:15.

3. To open the heavens, Mark 1:10, which had been shut since the sin of Adam.

 

It does not matter what kind of Biblical evidence you place in front of him and you have shut his mouth here but that won't change a thing. He will ignore it and jump on another text and later repeat his mantra about Saul on the road to demascus as though no one ever proved him wrong.

 

You are on record to state that Acts 2:38 was the first New Covenant sermon ever preached. Obviously, that statement denies that John the Baptist or Jesus ever preached a New Covenant Sermon. The fact that the thief on the cross went to heaven without baptism demonstrates that at least baptism previous to Acts 2:38 was not essential for salvation, for regeneration, for confession of faith, for anything salvic in nature.

Hence, how can you use any Pre-Acts 2:38 to support your view of New Covenant Salvation when by your own admission there was no such thing previous to Acts 2:38??????? You cannot use John 3:3-5 as that was Pre-Acts 2:38 BUT applicable then and there to Nicodemus.

You cannot have your cake and eat too! Either Acts 2:28 was the first New Covenant sermon or it was not. Either John 3:3-5 referred to new birth WITHOUT baptism or the the thief went to heaven unregenerated. You can't have it both ways.

 

A human being is either Lost or saved - there is no third option.

A human being is either unregenerated or regenerated - there is no third option

A human being is either a child of Satan or a child of God - there is no third option.

Therefore, if as you insist Romans 10:10 ("with the heart man believeth unto righteousness") occurs in the waters of baptism then prior to stepping into those waters that person is in the HEART condition described in Ephesians 4:18

Eph. 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

The words "being alienated from the life of God" demands this is the unregenerated state of the heart - "blindness of their heart" and demands this is state of understanding - "the understanding darkened."

Therefore, we should NEVER find precepts or examples in Scripture that place repentance and faith BEFORE baptism if Romans 10:10 does not occur until in baptism.

However, EVERY precept and EVERY example shows repentance and faith in the gospel PRECEDES baptism.

This is conclusive proof that your interpretation of Romans 10:10 is wrong and your whole view of baptism and salvation is equally wrong.